Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Lauro Lines Vs. Chasser

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 22, 1989

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

34 entries 3 linked 31 unlinked
Show
  1. Richardson-merrell Inc. Vs. Koller US Supreme Court · Jun 17, 1985
  2. Mitchell Vs. Forsyth US Supreme Court · Jun 19, 1985
  3. Nixon Vs. Fitzgerald US Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1982
  4. U.S. 495 (1989) U.S. Supreme Court Lauro Lines v. Chasser
    Search
  5. U.S. 495 (1989) Lauro Lines v. Chasser
    Search
  6. did not fall within the exception to the rule of nonappealability carved out for collateral final orders in Cohen v. Beneficial
    Search
  7. Rohrer, Hibler & Replogle, Inc. v. Perkins
    Search
  8. Sterling Forest Associates, Ltd. v. Barnett-Range
    Search
  9. Farmland Industries, Inc. v. Frazier-Parrott
    Search
  10. Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard
    Search
  11. U. S. 517 , 486 U. S. 521 (1988), quoting Catlin v. United
    Search
  12. Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas
    Search
  13. Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United
    Search
  14. U. S. 424 , 472 U. S. 431 (1985), quoting Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay
    Search
  15. Midland Asphalt Corp., supra, at 489 U. S. 798 , quoting United States v. MacDonald
    Search
  16. right not to be tried is effectively unreviewable after final judgment, and is immediately appealable. Helstoski v. Meanor
    Search
  17. Abney v. United
    Search
  18. to dismiss based upon a claim of absolute immunity from suit is immediately appealable prior to final judgment, Nixon v. Fitzgerald
    Search
  19. against the defendant is not properly before the particular court because it lacks jurisdiction. In Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard
    Search
  20. from suit -- even though service was essential to the trial court's jurisdiction over the defendant. See also Catlin v. United
    Search
  21. that there is a strong federal policy favoring the enforcement of foreign forum-selection clauses, citing The Bremen v. Zapata
    Search
  22. has always been a significant part of our collateral order doctrine. When first formulating that doctrine in Cohen v. Beneficial
    Search
  23. U. S. 546 (emphasis added). Our later cases have retained that significant requirement. For example, in Abney v. United
    Search
  24. U. S. 658 (emphasis added), quoting Cohen, supra, at 431 U. S. 546 . And in Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay
    Search
  25. Id. at 437 U. S. 468 (emphasis added). See also Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard
    Search
  26. Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury
    Search
  27. U.S. Supreme Court Lauro Lines v. Chasser
    Search
  28. Cohen v. Beneficial
    Search
  29. Catlin v. United
    Search
  30. Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay
    Search
  31. Helstoski v. Meanor
    Search
  32. In Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard
    Search
  33. The Bremen v. Zapata
    Search
  34. United States v. MacDonald
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial